{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 23, 2013--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\n[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:06 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(13-343) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation\npursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One\n(13-344) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9) Case Name:\nAnn Marie Gallant V. City of Alameda, et al.; Superior Court of California, Alameda\nCounty; Case No. RG11590505\n(13-345) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Pursuant to Government Code \u00a7\n54957; Position Evaluated: City Clerk - Lara Weisiger\nFollowing the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, direction was given to staff and\nregarding Existing Litigation, direction was given to staff.\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 7:01 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:30 p.m.\nFollowing the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Performance Evaluation, direction was given to the\nsubcommittee.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 12:28 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 23, 2013- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(13-346) Mayor Gilmore announced that the resolution regarding formation of a\nCommunity Facilities District [paragraph no. 13-364 and the ordinance authorizing a\nPurchase and Sale Agreement with Catellus [paragraph no. 13-365 would be\naddressed after the Public Hearing to consider integrated waste collection rates\n[paragraph no. 13-363].\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(13-347 ) Proclamation Declaring July 2013 as Recreation and Parks Month; and\n(13-347 A) Presentation of Recreation and Parks Annual Report.\nMayor Gilmore read the proclamation and presented a Certificate to Bill Delaney,\nRecreation and Park Commission Vice-Chair.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a presentation on the Annual Report.\nMayor Gilmore stated the annual report is being presented for the first time; parks play a\ncentral role in the City's life; an annual report should have been done before.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Recreation and Parks Director has accomplished a\nlot, which is due to the great Recreation Parks Commission and the Director having\ninnovative and exciting ideas; the department is running leaner, fees are paying for\nprograms, while rates remain accessible; parks are one of the great assets of the\ncommunity.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he loves that the old t-shirts from the 1970s and\n1980s have been brought back.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the report is excellent; a lot of things previously on the back\nburner have been accomplished in one short year; along with Councilmember Daysog,\nhat she is particularly partial to the shirts; having more come to fruition for Krusi Park\nwould be great.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember Chen stated that he has heard many great things about the Recreation\nand Parks Director and Commission; maintaining and keeping parks low cost or no cost\nto the residents is important; many people depend on community parks for exercise,\nentertainment, and socializing.\nMayor Gilmore stated a couple months ago, the library started the Food for Fines\nprogram; in a month's time, the library has collected over 5,000 pounds of food which\nhas been put to immediate use in Alameda; due to the Food for Fines program, over\n1,000 library accounts are now in good standing from people making a food donation;\nthanked everyone for participating.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the Alameda County HOME Program Agreement\n[paragraph no. 13-350 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*13-348) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting and Special Joint City Council\nand Successor Agency to the Community Improvement Commission Meeting Held on\nJune 11, 2013; and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on June 18,\n2013. Approved.\n(*13-349) Ratified Bills in the amount of $3,823,986.96.\n(13-350) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute\nRelated Documents, Agreements, and Modifications Related to the Alameda County\nHOME Partnership Investment Program (HOME) Consortium Construction Pool Funds\nfor the Shinsei Il Project.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director gave a brief presentation.\nAdvocated for special funding to include Veterans in affordable housing programs:\nRichard Bangert, Alameda.\nUrged approval of the staff recommendation: Diane Lichtenstein, Alameda Home Team;\nCatherine Relucio, Alameda Home Team; Helen Sause, Alameda Home Team; Bill\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 4, "text": "3\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 5, "text": "the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*13-351) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or His Designee, to Enter\nInto Purchase Agreements Not to Exceed $305,000 for the Replacement of Eight Police\nDepartment Vehicles and One Police Motorcycle. Approved.\n(*13-352) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Report on Litigation and Liability\nClaims Settlements Paid During the Period April to June 2013. Approved.\n(*13-353) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specification and Authorize Call for\nBids for the Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and\nMinor Street Patching, FY13-14, Phase 14, No. P.W. 05-13-15. Approved.\n(*13-354) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,612,556 to Fort\nBragg Electric, Inc. for the Group 1 - Sewer Pump Station Renovations for Reliability\nand Safety Improvements Project. No. P.W. 04-13-11 and Allocate $241,884 in\nContingencies. Approved.\n(*13-355) Recommendation to Approve a Third Amendment to the Agreement in the\nAmount of $150,000 to Ampco System Parking for Operation and Maintenance of the\nCivic Center Parking Garage. Approved.\n(*13-356) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Fieldstone Construction Company for\nWoodstock Field Improvements, Phase 2, No. P.W. 11-06-23. Approved.\n(*13-357) Resolution No. 14841, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Submit CalRecycle\nGrant Applications and to Execute All Necessary Documents.' Adopted.\n(*13-358) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Contract with\nMunicipal Auditing Services for Business License Audit and Enforcement Services; and\n(*13-358 A) Resolution No. 14842, \"Designating Municipal Auditing Services as an\nAuthorized Representative to Examine Sales and Uses Tax Records.\" Adopted.\n(*13-359) Resolution No. 14843, \"Requesting and Authorizing the County of Alameda to\nLevy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property in the City of Alameda as a Voter\nApproved Levy for the General Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election\nHeld November 7, 2000. Adopted.\n(*13-360) Ordinance No. 3076, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of a License Agreement with\nAntiques By the Bay, Inc., for Five Years in the Northwest Territories Located at 2900\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 6, "text": "Navy Way at Alameda Point.\" Finally passed.\n(*13-361) Ordinance No. 3077, \"Amending Section 30-2 of the Alameda Municipal Code\nto Allow Cottage Food Operations as Required by Assembly Bill 1616 and Allow All\nHome Occupations to Include Up to One Employee and Delete Reference to Excessive\nPedestrian Traffic.\" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(13-362) Resolution No. 14844, \"Appointing Shawn Shelby as a Member of the Golf\nCommission. Adopted;\n(13-362 A) Resolution No. 14845, \"Appointing Amy Fann as a Member of the Youth\nAdvisory Commission.\" Adopted;\n(13-362 B) Resolution No. 14846, \"Appointing Alanei Jackson as a Member of the\nYouth Advisory Commission.\" Adopted;\n(13-362 C) Resolution No. 14847, \"Appointing Amelia Khoo as a Member of the Youth\nAdvisory Commission.\" Adopted;\n(13-362 D) Resolution No. 14848, \"Appointing Shariff Youngblood as Member of the\nYouth Advisory Commission.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolutions of appointments.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nThe Assistant City Clerk Administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Shelby, Ms. Fann, Ms.\nKhoo and Mr. Youngblood.\n(13-363) Resolution No. 14849, \"Establishing Integrated Waste Collection Ceiling Rates\nand Service Fees for Alameda County Industries, Inc. (ACI) for Rate Period 12 (July\n2013 to June 2014). Adopted.\nThe Administrative Management Coordinator and Rick Simanson, HF&H, gave a\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog thanked staff for discussing the issue with him prior to the\nmeeting; stated that he is going to hold onto his methodological differences; based on\nhis calculations, the ratepayer basis is between $0.41 and $0.50 per month; however,\nstaff calculates the amount to be $0.37, which is reached by going from $0.47 to $0.77;\nthe amounts are in the same ball park; the agreement requires rates to be calculated by\ncomparing total expenses to total anticipated revenues to determine the rate needed to\nfill the gap; he believes the 6 month venture, which is usually a good methodology,\nrevealed a slight flaw; the better methodology would be to use incremental expenses\nversus incremental revenues to generate the necessary rate increase.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Chen stated that he understands operating expenses change every\nyear; cost of living adjustments, fuel costs and labor costs are all involved; the same\nfactors apply to cable, electric and water bills; hopefully, rate stability will increase\nmoving forward; the huge fluctuation, with some facing a 75% increase, is a burden to\nbusinesses and residents; hopefully, the rate increase will be more stable next year.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated in the future, staff should look more globally when\nnegotiating with ACI; a grant application to CalRecycle was approved on the Consent\nCalendar; CalRecycle administers various grant programs and furthers the State's\nefforts to reduce, recycle and reuse solid waste, preserve landfill capacity and\nprotecting public health, safety and the environment; the matter is not just about setting\ngarbage rates; incentives should be considered to get people to use the gray garbage\nbin less even though ACI would bring in less revenue; what goes in the gray bin goes\ninto the landfill; what goes into the green bin is compostable and recyclables go into the\nblue bin; the City should encourage more composting and recycling, rather than apply\nfor CalRecycle grants while keeping the gray bin rate lower for a larger bin; that she\nunderstand ACI incurs costs; some jurisdictions have trucks that pick up more than one\nbin; technology has changed; adapting the vehicles and not having so many trucks on\nthe road might be better for the environment and roads; the City has done a good job of\nhaving residents use less and put less in the landfill, which is part of the reason ACI is\nnot making as much revenue; the environment, City, and earth should be considered\nwhen looking at rates long term.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the chart which breaks down the average monthly\ngarbage rate is helpful; some things change, such as indexing jumping from $7.45 to\n$7.65 midyear; other things remain fixed, such as the fleet depreciation of $1.91; $0.77\ncorresponds to the rate increase covering the $960,000 depreciation for the\nCompressed Natural Gas (CNG) vehicles.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(13-364) Resolution No. 14850, \" Authorizing the Commencement of Proceedings for\nthe Formation of a Community Facilities District, Designating Consultants, Approving an\nAcquisition Agreement and Directing Certain Related Actions with Respect Thereto -\nAlameda Landing.\" Adopted.\nThe Acting Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 8, "text": "(13-365) Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing a Purchase and Sale\nAgreement with Catellus Alameda Retail, LLC and Joint Escrow Instructions for Sale of\nRemnant Parcel. Introduced.\nThe Acting Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the property transfer tax for City owned land is\nbased on the appraised value, and whether Catellus would pay the tax.\nThe Acting Community Development Director responded the appraised value would be\nused for the property value on the tax rolls.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the matter is addressed in Paragraph 6/1 of the closing\nprocedures.\nThe Acting Community Development Director read the paragraph: \"Buyer shall pay all\nclosing costs, escrow fees, recording costs and all City and County documented\ntransfer taxes payable in connection with the purchase and sale of the Remnant Parcel.\nBuyer shall pay all premiums for the Title Policy, including costs of additional\nendorsements and surveys.'\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the amount is based on the one dollar sale price or the\nappraised value; stated documentary transfer tax can be read as the nominal fee paid to\nrecord the deed of trust as opposed to a transfer tax which is often thousands of dollars.\nThe Acting Community Development Director responded the reference says City and\nCounty documentary transfer taxes, so she believes the City's transfer tax is included.\nMayor Gilmore stated the term \"documentary\" gives her pause.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the amount is based on the sale price.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the question is whether the amount is one dollar or\n$120,000.\nThe Finance Director stated documentary transfer tax is the transfer tax; both the\nCounty and City are mentioned because the county component is $1.10 per thousand\nand the City's rate is $15 per thousand.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the amount is based on the one dollar purchase price\nor the appraised value.\nThe City Attorney responded that she does not know if the matter was negotiated;\nstated the amount should be based on the full amount; $120,000 is the value; one dollar\nis being paid, but the benefit is $120,000, so the purchase price is $120,000.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 9, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the language should be modified to make\nthe matter clearer.\nThe Acting Community Development Director responded that she believes the language\ncan be clarified.\nMayor Gilmore stated the Acting Community Development Director indicated $120,000\nwould go on the tax rolls.\nThe Acting Community Development Director stated the intent is to put the property on\nthe tax rolls at its paper value; the transaction could be conducted so the City gets the\nadvantage of adding the property, which has a zero value right now.\nMayor Gilmore stated the matter should be clarified; that she would assume if the\nproperty goes on the tax rolls as $120,000, the transfer tax would be based on said\nassessed value; the matter needs to be clarified to ensure everyone is on the same\npage and the City gets what it is expecting, which is the transfer tax of that [$120,000]\nvalue.\nThe Acting Community Development Director stated staff would make the adjustment.\nStated that she is not in favor of the ordinance; urged the Council to postpone the\ndecision to allow more communication between CalTrans and the City: Patricia Ashley,\nAlameda.\nThe City Manager stated that he wants to assure the speaker that the left hand in the\nCity knows what the right hand is doing; Catellus needs to negotiate additional phases\nof the project with the City; Catellus would not want to put the City in a corner because\nthe ability to develop the balance of the project depends in large part upon the good will\nof the City; he has had extensive conversations with the College of Alameda regarding\nthe crosswalk issue, which is a legitimate concern that will be solved; CalTrans has a 90\nday period to fix the matter after the City present drawings; the property would not be\ndeveloped until the next year; there is plenty of time to work out everything.\nThe Acting Community Development Director stated the portion of land that is being\nproposed to be sold to Catellus is 0.3 acres; the area is a triangle, skinny strip along\nStargell Avenue; the crosswalk is in a different area that CalTrans is proposing to sell to\nCatellus; the transaction for Catellus to purchase areas from CalTrans is already\nunderway.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff is working on securing the crosswalk.\nThe Acting Community Development Director responded the Planning Board approved\nall five Use Permits last night; an In-N-Out Use Permit condition includes working with\nCalTrans to address Stargell Avenue pedestrian safety issues.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 10, "text": "Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the In-N-Out project is conditioned on the crosswalk\nbeing addressed, but the Safeway gas and Chase Bank are not, to which the Acting\nCommunity Development Director responded in the affirmative.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated Public Works staff began discussions with CalTrans\nregarding the crosswalk today.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether sale of the remnant parcel is not related to the\nCalTrans parcel, to which the Acting Community Development manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call\nvote: Councilmembers Chen: Aye; Daysog: Aye; Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye; Tam: Aye; and\nMayor Gilmore: Aye. Ayes: 5. Noes: 0.\n*\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 8:39 and reconvened the meeting at 8:44 p.m.\n(13-366) Recommendation to Receive a Report and Provide Direction to Staff\nRegarding a Strategy to Address Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB).\nThe Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the City would be doing what CalPERS does if a trust\nfund, which would be invested, is created.\nThe Finance Director responded the City would make contributions to the trust fund,\nwhich would be like the City having 457 plan; stated the City would then tell the trustee\nto make the payments to retirees; the trust fund would somewhat be like PERS; the City\nmakes the payment to PERS and PERS makes payment to the retirees.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the unused balance would earn interest.\nThe Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City has reviewed different\npools; the two main firms are PERS and PARS; PARS has some really attractive\noptions and allows selection of different types of pools; options range from very\nconservative to moderate to aggressive; the moderate approach would fit the City pretty\nwell; a return of about 6% is the goal, as opposed to 7 to 8% on the aggressive side; 6%\nseems moderate but is better than what the City could earn; currently, the City's\ninvestment pool is not even earning 1% due to current market rates.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding investment restrictions, the Finance\nDirector stated the City is restricted and is primarily in U.S. government or treasury\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 11, "text": "securities.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the situation remains the same; the City knows how\nmuch has to be set aside for OPEB annually, yet less is being set aside; tough\ndecisions still have to be made.\nThe Finance Director stated Councilmember Daysog is absolutely right; the trust fund is\na\nstarting point; the appropriate funding level will have to be discussed; putting\n$100,000 is into a trust fund is a good starting point; bond agencies would recognize\neffort has been made, which is positive for the City; a tiered benefit program is another\noption, which has begun to be addressed under the current Memorandums of\nUnderstanding (MOUs); PERS has a tiered program; for each year of PERS\nexperience, employees vest a certain percentage; for example, an employee who\nretires after 10 years would not receive 100% of the OPEB benefit; instead, with the rate\nof 5% per year, the employee would receive 50%; other cities have implemented such\nprograms; the system rewards experience; a third option is capping the City's medical\ncontribution rate; each year, the employer contribution goes up the same amount for\nboth retired and current employees; restructuring could be done to have the City\ncontribute $1,000 per month for medical expenses for retirees and current employees;\ncapping the amount at $1,000 stops automatic increases, which could dramatically\nlower the OPEB liability; the fourth option is to have future employees on a defined\ncontribution plan; instead of paying the benefit as long as an employee lives, the City's\nliability could end once the employee leaves the City; the employees could invest\nmoney in a health saving bank, such as a Voluntary Employees Benefit Association\n(VEBA); a VEBA is set up under Internal Revenue Services (IRS) regulations allows\nmoney to be pulled out tax free; other options include a plan to offer a buyout program\nsimilar the plan Beverly Hills started a couple of years ago; current employees receive\neither a onetime lump sum payment or OPEB upon retiring and new employees receive\na defined contribution plan.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the City of Beverley Hills issued a bond to pay for the\nprogram, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the City of Alameda has been dinged by credit\nagencies because of the OPEB liability, to which the Finance Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether rating agencies would consider issuing a bond positive\nor negative since the City would be taking on additional debt.\nThe City Manager responded the City would not ever really know; stated that he\nbelieves credit agencies would look at issuing bonds as positive; rating agencies look at\nOPEB with a jaundice eye because nobody knows how much healthcare rates are\ngoing to increase or the potential impacts of Obama care; the Beverly Hills program\nlocks in the present benefit value, which eliminates the danger of runaway premiums\nand buys out the liability early; the program allows cities to resolve not knowing how big\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 12, "text": "the problem is and calculates rates at present value, which is probably a good deal.\nThe Finance Director stated staff would definitely have to do a lot of analysis if Council\nis interested in the program; pension obligation bonds are typically taxable, which\nresults in a significantly higher rate; the rates are probably around 4% if the City\nrefinances bonds; however, pension obligation bonds are 6.5% to 7%; the rates would\ncontinue to go up to 10% to 12%; he is only aware of Beverly Hills, and no other cities in\nCalifornia, proceeding with the option.\nThe City Manager stated the debt would incur 6% or maybe a little more; however,\nmedical premium estimates currently increase by about 11% to 14% every year.\nMayor Gilmore stated the Finance Director has indicated two main drivers cause costs\nto increase: one is a larger pool of retirees and the other is healthcare costs; discussed\nObama Care; stated the City is presupposing premiums are going to continue to\nincrease at the same rate, which might occur; in 2006 or 2007, Bartel and Associates\nthought there would be national healthcare, which the Council did not want included in\nestimates since it was far away and might have never happened; now national\nhealthcare has sort of happened; more analysis is needed on what national healthcare\nmight look like for the City; the City should have a better idea of exactly what is being\ntackled because Obama Care is probably going to make rates go down or up.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Affordable Care Act is very complex; the Congressional\nbudget office is completing estimates; Alameda Hospital has affiliated with the County in\nreaction to the Affordable Care Act because a competition increase is anticipated;\nhealthcare premiums should go down by 10% to 18% in the next five years; that she\ndoes not know how projections are being done; the matter should be considered.\nThe City Manager stated in spite of the Affordable Care Act, the aging population\nbelieves it has a right to live forever, so he is not very optimistic; the Affordable Care Act\nmight provide a mitigation to what would have been a larger increase; demographics\ncannot be changed; being 80 years old and feeling entitled to a third knee is not going\nto change because of legislation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City made significant progress with the last MOU\nnegotiations; actuarials show 80% of public safety spouses outlive the retirees; retirees\ndo not typically live longer than 12 years after retiring.\nThe City Manager stated healthcare is provided for current public safety retirees'\nspouses; most employees were hired before June, 2011; there will be relief in the long\nterm; however, how to handle the next 30 years is the problem.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she would like more information about how Obama Care is\nlikely to affect the City; the City might decide the information is not relevant or might not\nwant to put all eggs in one basket in terms of rates; moving forward without that piece of\nthe puzzle seems irresponsible.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 13, "text": "The Finance Director stated Bartel and Associates is going to do an actuarial study\nupdate and review a number of different health factors; the study could include the\neffects of Obama Care and an update could be brought to Council.\nDoug Pryor, Bartel and Associates, stated whether or not rates are coming down\ndepends on who you talk to; Bartel and Associates has not adjusted projections on\nwhere premiums are going; the matter was raised as part of the discussion about\ncashing out similar to Beverly Hills; one of the advantages to keep in mind is the City\nwould not cash people out at the full benefit value; a soft debt is being changed for a\nhard debt with bonds; Beverly Hills determined the worth and provided some fraction to\nentice people; the estimate might be to cash out 70%; however, based on the variable\nof healthcare reform the amount could be dropped by a little bit; Obama Care has so\nmany variables that no one knows where go premiums will go.\nThe City Manager noted the Beverly Hills plan was optional and was not imposed on\nentire bargaining units; stated each individual makes a determination.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a vote of the entire bargaining unit would not be\nneeded; the City does not know where the Affordable Care Act is going to lead; right\nnow, the Act is on hold; assuming that medical rates and medical care costs are going\nto increase is safe; if rates do not increase, the City would be in better shape and the\nwindfall could be added to the trust fund; however, she concurs with Mayor Gilmore;\nshe would like information amplified when the matter returns; the City should not be\nfrozen into inaction because the future cannot be shown in a crystal ball; actuarial\nstudies are the best that can be done; concurred with Councilmember Tam that the\nAffordable Care Act would bring rates down by sheer competition even for a third knee\nfor a 80 year old; not knowing should not keep the City from tackling a problem which is\ngetting worse.\nThe Finance Director stated the City has been trying to tackle OPEB on a very\nincremental basis over time, which is continuing; OPEB cannot be solved in one day;\nthe City is trying to take smart, reasonable steps to inch itself into a better position; a\nrecent announcement about Obama Care indicated implementation has been delayed\nfor one year from 2014 to 2015; the City is under PERS Health, which tends to be more\ncomprehensive than other health plans; Obama Care may have some impacts;\nhowever, coverage is already higher than most standard plans; the City should go\nforward with reasonable, conservative assumptions about where healthcare is going in\nthe future; having a little extra in the bank does not hurt.\nMayor Gilmore stated the goal is to have a plan to address OPEB liabilities; in the early\n2000's, the liability was not even reported; the City started reporting the liability, then,\nnoticed the number was really big and has become even bigger; the goal is to have a\nplan to address what has accumulated for 30 or 40 years; the City should have a plan\nrather than kicking the can down the road; hopefully, the plan will be viewed as a\npositive, not only by citizens, but by bond agencies because the City may need to float\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 14, "text": "bonds for infrastructure or other things; a plan needs to be in place to improve the City's\nbond rating.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the public should realize there will be some sacrifices;\nresidents have to be prepared; not meeting OPEB obligations right now has led to an\nunfunded liability of roughly $90 million; questioned how the City would be able to fund\nthe trust fund; stated during the budget sessions, the Library Director indicated both\nbranch libraries cost around $176,000 to run, which totals almost $400,000; an example\nof a sacrifice would be rolling blackouts-closing one branch library to generate savings\nwhich would be dedicated towards the trust fund; the Council and community have to\ndiscuss such real life situations; narrowing the plan and the amount that has to be set\naside is important because on one hand, the City needs a plan to meet long term OPEB\nobligations; on the other hand, the City wants to maintain services; something has got to\ngive.\nThe Finance Director concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated it is a balancing\nact; if the City were funding its arch, an additional $4.5 million would have to be paid\nevery year, which is 6% of the budget; continued the presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about the lowering delta, the Finance Director\nstated the City had its own pension plan for police and firefighters, called the 1079 and\n1082 plans; the plans are closed, but still have retirees receiving benefits; the pension\nplan's population has become smaller and smaller, so the City has lower payments\neach year; the decrease in the amount paid could be used to offset some increases in\nOPEB payments.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the OPEB Task Force discussed the 1082 plan; the\nminutes indicated $3.2 million was in the 1082 plan when the City moved into PERS in\n1991; the $3.2 million was to help pay for retiree healthcare and dental benefits; the\nminutes were vague about what happened to the fund; the prior City Manager\ndiscussed the possibility of leveraging funds to secure a pension obligation bond;\ninquired whether the matter would be analyzed.\nThe Finance Director responded that he does not know about the matter, but would\nspeculate that the City probably negotiated with PERS to move the assets to PERS.\nCouncilmember Tam stated all the assets, except for the $3.2 million surplus amount,\nwere moved into PERS; that she understands only two employees remain under the\n1082 plan; some funds should remain.\nThe Finance Director stated both the 1079 and 1082 plans are similar to OPEB; the City\noperates on a pay-as-you-go basis; further stated the City has set aside a couple\nhundred thousand in an OPEB internal service fund to get it started; every year efforts\nare made to contribute more into the fund; encouraged getting a mechanism in place\nand adhering to a plan.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 15, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how much remains in the two funds.\nThe Finance Director responded that he would research the matter; stated the funds are\nat almost zero right now; the City started doing pay-as-you-go after funding ran out; the\nCity pays around $2 million per year for the 1079 and 1082 plans; using up the $3.2\nmillion would not have taken long and could have occurred over two years.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated payments being made to the last retirees in the 1079\nand 1082 plans should be considered like a car payment; when the car is paid off, the\nCity should keep depositing payments into a savings account towards the next car; the\nCity Council minutes from October 2008 address the delta; the Interim Finance Director\noffered several alternatives; one was a ramp up; the trust fund cannot be adequately\nfunded overnight; anything set aside is going to help; any windfalls should be deposited\nto help grow the trust fund.\nThe Finance Director stated the idea is great; further stated Bartel and Associates does\nthe actuarial for the 1079 1082 plans; projections are done over a 10 year period; future\nbudgets could incorporate putting the amount by which the 1079 and1082 plans go\ndown into OPEB; Council can give staff direction and staff would be happy to do so.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that is the Council's direction.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she discussed another thought with the City Manager;\nAlameda Point is a big elephant in the room; the City sees development of Alameda\nPoint as an economic engine; hopefully, a certain amount of sales tax will be generated;\nthe last MOUs tied raises to certain funds so employees would share in the upside if the\nGeneral Fund revenue increased; her idea is to dedicate some portion of the Alameda\nPoint [sales tax] revenue stream to pay some of the OPEB liability.\nThe Finance Director stated the Council could definitely establish said policy for staff to\nimplement; a onetime windfall from Alameda Point land sales could help fund OPEB.\nThe City Manager stated the Finance Director was not involved in negations with the\nNavy; revenues generated at Alameda Point through the sale or leasing of real property\nmust remain on the former Base for 25 years; however, sales tax, business license tax\nor other revenue not tied to community benefits or infrastructure districts, would go into\nthe General Fund; the Council could establish a policy to require a certain percentage of\nrevenues to be set aside for OPEB.\nMayor Gilmore stated a lot of cities were awash in funds during the Internet boom;\nmoney was used to expand services and hire more staff; cities spent revenue coming\nin; additional revenue from Alameda Point development should not all be spent, some\nshould be set aside for OPEB; noted that she would not oppose setting aside funds for\nmaintenance either; stated the City should not spend all revenue to grow programs and\nadd staff; funds should be applied to outstanding liabilities.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Chen stated the agenda item is to direct staff; staff would come back\nwith a solution; the OPEB Task Force presented a recommendation last October;\ncommended staff for starting a dialog with public safety employees, which is long\noverdue; noted retired employees in their 60's, 70's and 80's would have difficulty\nobtaining affordable insurance elsewhere if the City does a buyout plan or cap; when\nworking with labor unions, staff should keep in mind that senior citizens may be at the\ngreatest risk because of their inability to find affordable healthcare somewhere else.\nThe Finance Director stated tough decisions have to be made; almost all the ideas,\nother than the trust, impact the City, retirees or current employees; staff would like the\nCouncil to provide feedback if there are options that should not be pursued in\nnegotiations with employee groups.\nMayor Gilmore noted there are very strict legal restrictions for people who are already\nretired; retirees' benefits cannot change.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City has been sued and adjudicated in the courts with\nthe Police Officers Association.\nThe Finance Director stated several options relate to future employees; case law related\nto OPEB says employees vest the day employment starts; the City could review\noptions, such as capping which do not decrease benefits, but change the structure; staff\nis presenting potential options; staff wants to know if there are any options the Council\ndoes not want staff to pursue going into employee negotiations; several different\napproaches will have to be used to reduce the liability; the City will not be able to reduce\nthe liability in just one way.\nMayor Gilmore stated changing retired employees' benefit would be a long, drawn-out\nprocess with a lot of potential pitfalls; that she would put the idea at the bottom of the\noptions; she hopes other, easier things can be implemented as there is a huge potential\nthe City would be sued again and lose; changing retired employees' benefits is probably\nthe one she would direct staff not to pursue.\nThe Finance Director stated staff would consult with attorneys on any\nrecommendations; noted a couple of OPEB lawsuits are pending; stated Alameda will\nnot be on the cutting edge; staff is looking at what other cities have done.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated nine ideas have been provided; encouraged members of\nthe public to provide the City with additional suggestions; stated providing estimates for\nthe nine items would be helpful; there is an annual unfunded liability of $4.5 million; a\nchart should be presented showing how much closer each of the nine items brings the\nCity towards closing the $4.5 million annual amount; the analysis would allow him to\nprioritize; estimates are not easy and require assumptions, which is why the City has\nhired Bartel and Associates.\nThe Finance Director stated Bartel and Associates could complete some valuations to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 17, "text": "determine the potential savings from suggestions; the range of savings would depend\non different scenarios.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the key issue with the trust fund is how to capitalize the\nfund; Councilmembers have discussed diverting savings from the 1079 and 1082 plans;\nanalysis should include the possibility of rolling blackouts; provided examples of rolling\nblackouts, such as closing one or two parks or closing different branch libraries for\nperiods of time; stated the savings which could be generated should be a part of the\ndiscussion or at least the analysis.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated past Council direction has been to have budget cuts\nstart furthest from the point of service; Councilmember Daysog's suggestions could be\nconsidered, but would be a long way down the road; staff report Table 2 separates\nOPEB costs for public safety versus miscellaneous employees; the amount is almost 10\ntimes higher for public safety employees; suggested analysis include the number of\nemployees in each group; inquired whether there are more public safety retirees then\nmiscellaneous retirees, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated costs need to be brought down; knowing the numbers\nwould be helpful; the potential solutions recommended by the OPEB Task Force were\noutlined in the report; in the future, the Fiscal Sustainability Committee's report should\nalso be included; advantages, such as improving the City's credit rating, should be\noutlined to provide Council with a better understanding of what would work best; some\nsort of hybrid will probably be done, rather than selecting one solution; the dollar\namount of savings should be provided; staff should do said calculations because the\nsolution will involve sacrifices; the Council needs to know what it will get for sacrifices;\nCouncil might select different option after learning it is not as onerous to the public and\nhas benefits; Council does not have enough information right now; the Beverly Hills plan\nis very interesting; however, she would be very hesitant to consider changing the OPEB\nbenefit for future sworn public safety employees to the minimum; miscellaneous and\npublic safety employees are not equal; public safety professionals are put in physical\ndanger and may have more significant medical conditions than miscellaneous\nemployees; in 2008, Mayor Gilmore suggested contracting out engineering services;\nquestioned whether the matter was explored.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the 2008 matter addressed Planning and Building services.\nThe City Manager stated the same has been done with the Recreation and Park fund;\nrevenue pays for programs; Planning and Building services are fee based and are\nunder a separate revenue stream, rather than the General Fund.\nThe Finance Director stated engineering and community development activities are not\ngreatly impacted by OPEB.\nMayor Gilmore stated the context is the City had a massive layoff in Planning and\nBuilding; the concept was the City could contract out services as permit work increased,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 18, "text": "rather than hire more employees.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether benefits for employees hired after June\n2011 are averaged on the three highest years of salary, to which the City Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the same could be done for current\nemployees.\nThe City Manager responded the report suggests treating healthcare benefits for current\nemployees more like a pension program; the premium percentage would depend upon\nyears of service; at 5% per year, employees would get 100% coverage at 20 years and\n50% at 10 years; the percentage could be another amount, such as 4% or 8%; the\nchange would be subject to negotiation.\nMayor Gilmore stated employees vest after 10 years; inquired whether retirement is age\n55 instead of 50.\nThe City Manager stated there are options; Alameda has selected 2.7% at age 57.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the tiered approach would mean that public safety\nemployees would work longer, to which the City Manager responded in the negative;\nstated people will probably work longer and not retire at 50; in 30 years, safety\nemployees will probably retire at 57; the new formula applies to employees hired after\nthis past January and would not impact the OPEB benefit level; although the City uses\nPERS, the trust fund may not necessarily be a PERS trust fund; the question is whether\nCouncil wants to staff to engage unions about making the healthcare benefit more like\nthe pension benefit.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Manager stated changes which impact current employees are all negotiable.\nMayor Gilmore requested the City Treasurer to address the type of investments that\nwould be available to the City under a trust fund.\nThe City Treasurer stated the staff report indicates OPEB is the largest threat to the\nlong term fiscal stability of the City; he concurs; OPEB needs to be solved by making\ncuts and finding revenue; a trust fund makes sense if the City has extra money;\nhowever, the City does not have extra money; the only way to directly impact the liability\nis to impact current employees' benefits, which is very difficult; employees have to be\nasked to make sacrifices; the idea of bonding involves risk; the City needs to find a\nbalance that is the least painful for everyone involved.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council consensus seems to be that the City should move\nforward with the trust fund; how the trust fund would be funded is another issue; having\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 19, "text": "a\ntrust fund is important because employees are going to want to know that money will\ngo towards the benefit if they are asked to pay more for OPEB or receive reduced\nbenefits; the trust fund is needed for transparency and credibility; the trust fund would\nbe a starting place to ask employees what they would be willing to do.\nThe Finance Director stated Council has indicated staff should return with different trust\nfund firms and work with Bartell and Associates, as they work on the revised OPEB\nactuarial, to provide estimates and potential savings for each proposed solutions;\nestablishing the trust fund is a critical first step.\nMayor Gilmore stated the plan should be developed with employees; some intense and\nlong discussions with employees will be held throughout the process.\nThe City Manager stated staff would present a report on the proposed trust fund in the\nearly fall; Council direction seems to be to proceed with the trust fund regardless of\nsolutions that may or may not manifest through negotiations; staff has already begun\ntalking to different firms; discussed his experience with pension reform in Oakland;\nstated unlike Oakland, Alameda has always paid its existing liability and has not\nborrowed money; the problem is the actuarials and assumptions indicate that numbers\nare going to rise very quickly and soon; there is a window of opportunity; the City is\ntrying to get ahead of the wave before it crashes; there is no one solution in his opinion;\nstaff has offered a menu of potential solutions; tonight, the Council has indicated staff\nshould put anything which impacts existing retirees at the bottom of the priority list and a\ntrust fund should be started; the problem took more than 50 years to develop; the goal\nis to do something that will make a substantial impact on the liability; the amount cannot\nget to zero in one shot unless there are massive cuts and layoffs; relations with\nbargaining units are excellent; bargaining units have demonstrated an understanding of\nthe City's financial situation and have contributed in leading edge ways; a substantial\nreduction cannot be made without both revenue and contribution changes; he believes\nthe City can create a program that will be above and beyond neighboring cities; the\nbonds market will reward the City, which will be very important as the former Base is\ndeveloped; the Council direction tonight allows staff to prioritize; asked Council to\nauthorize him to begin formal discussions with the bargaining units; stated that he\nhopes to begin discussions this summer.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she would like the Council to give the City Manager\nauthorization to begin talking to bargaining units; the matter should be discussed\ncooperatively, rather than the City just presenting options; bargaining units might have\nsuggestions that have not been raised.\nThe City Manager requested the direction from Council be a motion.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the agenda item is a recommendation to receive the report\nand provide direction; inquired whether the direction would be to provide the City\nManager authority to begin discussions or reopen the MOUs.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 20, "text": "The City Manager responded the direction should be to begin informal decisions\nconsistent with the Council direction regarding options discussed.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the direction sounds like a good starting point.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she would feel more comfortable proceeding when\nCouncil is provided with additional information in September.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Tam is proposing that the\nsequence should be Council receives the information first; then gives direction.\nCouncilmember Tam responded in the affirmative; stated that she would not object if the\nCity Manager wants to meet and confer and start a dialog with the bargaining units as\ninformation is developed.\nThe City Manager stated staff would proceed with said direction; reopening the MOUs\nwould be premature.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council has decided to move forward with the trust fund; the City\nManager wants to inform bargaining groups that benefits will be discussed at some\npoint; involving the groups from the beginning is more cooperative.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council does not meet again until September; the City\nManager may use the summer to engage in informal discussions and feel out the\ngroups; several things can be done at once; staff will return to Council in September;\nreceiving more information from staff is not being precluded.\nMayor Gilmore stated the bargaining are either present tonight or will watching the\nmeeting; questions will come up.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she has no objections; concurred dialog is important\nand informal conversations are needed; stated people need to know what is transpiring;\nthat she does take some exception to giving direction to have groups comment on the\nnine suggestions to find ways to address the problem.\nMayor Gilmore stated said direction is not what she is hearing.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated possibly ideas not yet proposed might even come from\nthe discussions.\nMayor Gilmore summarized that the directions is: 1) staff would provide more\ninformation on the trust fund scenario, including the manager and set up; 2) informal\ndiscussions would be held between the City Manager and the bargaining groups\nregarding Council wanting information on the trust fund and explaining establishment of\na fund would be likely.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 21, "text": "The City Manager stated a solution would not be presented in September; only the trust\nfund and additional information about Beverly Hills would be presented in September.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether information requested would be provided, to\nwhich the City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated in September, staff would\naddress the specific questions asked; theoretically, if bargaining units indicate there is\nno interest in the voluntary buyout, he would inform Council in September and a study\nwould not be needed; an entire solution would probably not be presented to the Council\nuntil early spring; the dialog will take a long time because the situation is remarkably\ncomplex; noted the last MOUs were done quickly because there was a framework;\nstated charting the next round together is going to take quite a while; having a two year\nbudget allows staff to devote resources to the problem during the time a budget is not\nbeing prepared.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the dialog is just beginning; the City is not limited to the\nnine solutions; inquired whether other solutions raised would be considered, to which\nthe City Manager responded that he expects and hopes there will be other solutions.\nThe Financial Director noted coming up with estimates on the nine proposed solutions\nmay take a little bit longer than September to obtain.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like to understand which rolling blackouts\nthe Council and public are interested in; the City has to look at all the different solutions\non the revenue side and expenditure side.\n*\n(13-367) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the remaining\nagenda items after 10:30 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Tam - 1.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of requesting additional information on the\ntrust fund and authorizing the City Manager to initiate informal discussions with the\nbargaining units.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(13-368) Recommendation to Receive a Report and Provide Direction to Staff on\nPotential Refunding of 2002 City Hall Project Certificates of Participation and 2003\nGeneral Obligation Bonds.\nThe Finance Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 22, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated the Fire Department held community meetings about the\ndifferent Emergency Operations Center (EOC) possibilities; inquired what the cost\nwould be and whether $3 million would cover costs.\nThe City Manager responded the EOC would cost around $2.8 million; the City owns\nthe land, which is adjacent to Fire Station 3.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired how much a new Fire Station [3] would cost, to which\nthe City Manager responded the most recent estimate is $6.5 to $7 million; stated staff\nis working on reducing the figure.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there is a specific revenue source, to which\nthe City Manager responded in the negative; stated having the site prepared when the\nEOC is done would help the project; the City would achieve some economies of scale.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the approach is sensible; the EOC price tag sounds\ngood; the library bond estimate was $15 per $100,000 of assessed value; the rate\ndropped significantly by the time the City went out to market; people pay $8.50 per\n$100,000 instead; refinancing provides a savings; a lower tax bill would be appreciated\nin the current economy.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of providing direction on the two issues\n[refunding the 2002 City Hall Project Certificates of Participation and 2003 General\nObligation Bonds].\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the motion includes the $3 million cash out.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded in the affirmative; stated $3 million would be\ncashed out to cover the cost of the EOC and the tax payers would still receive a little\nbreak, which does not happen often.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the two [2002 Certificates of Participation and\n2003 General Obligation Bonds] represent the only outstanding debt, to which the\nFinance Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired why the same is not being done for other bonds, to\nwhich Councilmember Tam responded the City has already done so.\nThe Finance Director stated a financial advisor reviewed all of the bonds; most of the\nother bonds are from the Community Improvement Commission; redoing said bonds is\nnot feasible right now.\nMayor Gilmore noted the City does not have a lot of debt.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 23, "text": "(13-369) Recommendation to Endorse Comments on Alameda Point Conceptual\nPlanning Guide.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Guide is really fun to read; the staff report noted\nthe document represents 17 years of previous planning documents and efforts; the City\nhas been working on the issue for a long time; moving forward is exciting; compressive\nplanning information has gone into the Guide; the Planning Board has suggested\nspecific changes to the Guide; one suggestion was to add language to clarify parks and\nopen space are to be used for employees as well as residents; requested an\nexplanation.\nIn response, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the Guide specifically\nstates parks are for residents; stated a Planning Board member noted parks are also for\nemployees; another solution would be to take out language about parks being for\nresidents since parks are for everyone.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Recreation and Parks Director's presentation\ntonight revealed parks are used by residents more than nonresidents, but parks are\nopen for everybody; stated the list of stakeholders includes the West Alameda Business\nAssociation (WABA), commercial and residential development professionals, Alameda\nPoint commercial tenants, and others; inquired why the Park Street Business\nAssociation (PSBA) is a stakeholder.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded both WABA and the Chamber\nof Commerce were included; stated PSBA was added just to be as inclusive as possible\nand to have all business associations involved in the process.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted Park Street is a long way away; stated broad-based\ncommunity outreach will use the website, social media and editorial board briefings in\nboth the print and online media; listed media groups; questioned whether other journals,\nsuch as the San Francisco Chronicle, East Bay Business Times, and San Francisco\nBusiness Times, should be included; stated the net should be cast wider than the City\nlimits to attract potential businesses and investors; that she is pleased there is room for\nnew architecture in new areas while the historic nature of the historical zone would be\nrespected; the Guide talks about business retention and attraction and notes initially,\ncompromises need to be made to retain and attract business; inquired what is meant by\ncompromises needing to be made initially.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded one idea was regarding parking\npricing; stated transit use is encouraged in areas which have high parking demand;\ncustomers might not want to go to a retail location which charges for parking; charging\nfor parking initially would only discourage people from going to the location; including\nparking pricing in the City's tool kit could be used to address concerns regarding\nsuccessfully attracting retail customers long term.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 24, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City would be flexible.\n*\n(13-370) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the meeting continuing after 11:00\np.m.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion which carried by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog and Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Noes:\nCouncilmembers Chen and Tam - 2.\n*\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she likes the plan overall, including the revisions and\nsuggestions; the Figure 7.A and 7.B cross sections are premature and should probably\nbe eliminated, as well as the Zoning Designations which might be too confusing; said\nissues would be discussed at some point in the future; a phasing schedule or plan for\nthe EIR, zoning, and infrastructure plan should be reviewed at the joint City Council and\nPlanning Board meeting; the joint discussion should also address the disposition\nstrategy and the various land which was conveyed at no cost.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he enjoyed reading the draft Guide; inquired whether\na lawsuit from the Chinatown Merchant Association is pending, to which the Chief\nOperating Officer - Alameda Point responded there is a settlement agreement.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the City is reaching out to the Chinatown\ncommunity, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the\naffirmative; stated staff met with the group and has another meeting scheduled; staff\nintends to continue having meetings to discuss the project and work with the group over\nthe next six months and probably a lot longer.\nCouncilmember Chen suggested outreaching to Asian organizations, such as the\nAlameda Chinese Club.\nMayor Gilmore stated the pictures being used in reports have greatly improved over the\nlast two years; reading the Guide is very enjoyable; Section 4.2 calls attention to the\nwaterfront area; a limited number of restaurants in Alameda overlook the water, which is\nunfortunate; Alameda Point is the last waterfront area to be developed; getting the\ndevelopment right is essential; she is really happy to see a lot of attention and detail\nbeing paid to the waterfront area; the normal tendency is to rush development; however,\na waterfront area should not be done quickly; the City should be very selective about\nwhat is done on the waterfront.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he views Alameda Point through the lens of the\nrecent national downturn; Alameda Point has to be more than a real estate deal; the\nCity should consider opportunities which would create good paying jobs and economic\nand social justice angles; the built environment will have consequences which effect\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 25, "text": "different community segments; mitigations should be contemplated with social justice\nand economic angles; further stated the City Council should be more involved; the\nprocess needs to start and end with the City Council.\nUrged adoption of the Conceptual Planning Guide; addressed the sailing program and\nsuggested the program be moved to the seaplane lagoon area; stated the program is\nrun by a nonprofit with the goal of making sailing available for everyone: Kame\nRichards, Alameda Community Sailing Center.\nStated the Base is an unprecedented opportunity; the Plan's vision needs more\nspecificity and should have more clarity about how the next phase occurs; questioned\nwhat high environmental standards means; stated more process clarity and more public\nforums would be good to get the public at large join in: Chuck Kapelke, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired about the next steps, to which the Chief Operating\nOfficer - Alameda Point responded the Council is considering endorsing the Plan with\nthe potential modifications tonight; stated the final Conceptual Guide, including any\nmodifications, would be produced and made available on the website; a number of\ndocuments would be released; hearings would be held with the Planning Board and City\nCouncil to present the documents; meetings are scheduled with Boards, Commissions\nand community groups; items would be presented to Council in January.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated staff could deal with economic and social justice issues\nby talking to people who worked at the Oakland Army Base.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated now is the time for staff to meet\nwith organizations and encouraged the Council to let her know if there are any others.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of endorsing the Conceptual Planning Guide with\nthe comments.\nCouncilmember Daysog Seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what would be done about the Council's comments.\nMayor Gilmore responded the joint meeting with the Planning Board would provide an\nopportunity to discuss issues.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would be interested in seeing a framework for\ndiscussions.\nThe City Planner stated the joint meeting would be a good opportunity to have said\ndiscussion.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-07-23", "page": 26, "text": "(13-371) The City Manager announced an upcoming National Night Out would be held\non August 2nd. addressed an article regarding Marina View Towers; stated eviction\nnotice were given in order to complete a seismic retrofit; announced the Joint City\nCouncil and Planning Board meeting would be held on September 25th.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether an agenda would be posted, to which the\nCity Manager responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Manager stated Councilmembers would receive the agenda, which would also\nbe sent to various regional agencies to ensure everyone sees what the City is doing.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(13-372) Consideration of Mayor's Appointment to the Rent Review Advisory\nCommittee.\nMayor Gilmore appointed Royl Roberts to the Rent Review Advisory Committee.\n(13-373) Councilmember Chen announced that he would be holding a National Night\nOut event at his home.\n(13-374) Councilmember Tam announced that she went to San Diego and was\nappointed to the Board of the League of California Cities.\n(13-375) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft announced that she attended a ribbon cutting at the\nAlameda County Family Justice Center celebrating a new pop-up library.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:21 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nJuly 23, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-07-23.pdf"}